Progress and update on outcomes from consultation

I am conscious that I haven’t updated this blog recently.  Only excuse is that I have been a bit busy reading all the responses to the consultation document and generating the implementation plan, which we are still aiming to have completed by the end of this month.  We have published some statistical results from the consultation on our website and below is a more descriptive view of some of the main feedback we received.  A fuller report should be finished later this week and we will then publish on the web. As I said on the website, overall support was positive and constructive as well as a little cautious in some areas due to the many unknowns.  Equally, it did give us confidence that we were broadly on the right track and thus it is full steam ahead with writing the implementation plan.

One aspect that will be a bit different from the consultation plan is around the proposals for sector, including practitioner and learner, engagement.  Here there was virtually unanimous agreement that this will be an essential feature for the future, but also some questions about exactly how this should be achieved and, for example, the almost inevitable tension between being all inclusive and not being too unwieldy or over bureaucratic.  In addition, the sector engagement/consultation activities are likely to be different in the early formative stages compared to those needed when the Guild is fully up and running.  Thus in the Implementation Plan we are going to describe the types of engagement processes needed without being over prescriptive about exactly how they will be implemented. .

General feedback from consultation exercise

Overall there was good support for the general proposed aims and remit for the Guild giving confidence of strong sector support for the concept with 83% supporting the aims and 80% agreeing with the remit.  As you might expect in any debate about overall aims, there were some who suggested a wider scope, with others questioning some elements, e.g. the ability of the Guild to really impact of sector reputation.  A number of replies emphasised the need to be more specific about the Guild’s potential role in recognising and promoting equality and diversity issues, including support for people working with learners with disabilities or learning difficulties. There were many interesting comments made about the appropriate definition or definitions of professionalism across this very diverse sector. Thus reaching a common understanding with the sector on what professionalism means for different roles will be an important task for the Guild when formed.

During the consultation events some attendees still had questions about the potential value of the Guild, although this was partly due to a lack of understanding as many groups were more enthusiastic at the end on the session compared to the beginning. 

The scope of the Guild in terms of which parts of the workforce should be included generated quite a lot of debate, between the Guild covering all staff and those preferring it to focus on just staff involved in teaching, learning and assessment and those directly involved in support to learners.  Based on discussions at the consultation events, this is not so much an ideological difference, but concern that if given a very wide remit the Guild could end up trying to do too much and not doing anything well.  Although some suggested the Guild should be a professional individual membership body, the majority supported the proposal that it should be based on the proposed organisational subscriber model.

The Governance structure.  Overall there was good support for the proposed formal with two key themes emerging: 

·         The need to ensure the company members covered the whole sector and not focussed entirely on colleges and private providers.
·         Secondly, whilst virtually everyone agreed that some form of sector engagement was essential, there were some points made about:
·         The need to have clarity of any relationships between any consultative group/s and the main board.
·         The risk of an over bureaucratic sector engagement process and the ability to reach a consensus with such a diverse sector.
·         The processes for engaging other sector general and membership bodies and organisations, as well as Unions.
·         The importance of trying to void duplication with existing sector networks and groups.

Not unexpectedly funding was a much debated topic throughout the process, with three underlying themes:
·         A concern that if the Guild is centrally funded then the real power of the sector employers to decide on the way forward will always be somewhat limited.
·         Affordability issues with decreasing budgets if individual providers are expected to pay a subscription in future years.  Although there was some lack of understanding about the proposed levy approach, there was also concern that in future years this might still result in a reduction of funding for providers if the current ‘top slice’ from the skills budget to fund organisations such as LSIS disappears.
·         Equally whilst not unanimous the majority of respondents believe that without some form of ongoing central funding support the Guild would probably not survive.

There were clearly many other very valuable comments and suggestions, which will form an invaluable source of initial information for the Guild during the formative stages.  A few key points which need to be considered in formulating this plan include:
·         Concerns about the potential loss of some the services currently offered by LSIS, which may not be part of the Guild’s remit – e.g. intervention service.
·         The vital importance of not losing the rich legacy information and expertise in the sector, and specifically the need to somehow retain the excellence gateway whilst also improving access and relevance.
·         Relationship and need to avoid duplication or confused areas of responsibility with other bodies, especially the large provider membership bodies (AoC, AELP etc), the Unions, awarding bodies, Ofsted etc.

Ah well that's an overview.....now back to drafting the Implementation Plan!
Peter

1st consultation events

Last week we had our first two consultation events in Manchester and London aimed specifically at practitioners, although we did have a pretty wide range of attendees.  I have to say I found both events very informative and constructive, if not at times a little challenging, but nobody ever said this was going to be easy….or if they did I clearly wasn’t paying attention! 

It is quite hard to try and summarise all the debate and I didn’t want to publish all the notes at this stage, as I think it is important that each event starts with a clean sheet of paper.  So I am going to just mention some key questions or points I took away with me.

A fundamental area is around the whole question of Continuous Professional Development (CPD).  But crucially this is not just about the ‘supply side’ of ensuring good CPD, which is of course vital,  but practitioners felt very strongly that key to success will be support and encouragement from providers to enable their workforce to engage with CPD.  Easy to say and of course there will always be resource considerations, but if the Guild doesn’t have some meaningful and positive impact on CPD in the round, then I have a horrible feeling it will rapidly lose credibility with the workforce. Equally a couple of good ideas of how good CPD might be delivered were suggested – perhaps based on the Open University type model and definitely using modern technology where appropriate.

Some interesting challenges that the Guild needs to be for anyone delivering training in the learning and skills sector and not just those funded by Government.  Personally, whilst this might be a longer term aspiration and may involve different approaches, I am not clear if it would work in real life – although pretty sure I didn’t convince some of the attendees, so will need to think more about this.

Again as you might expect there was a strong message that if we want to achieve workforce buy-in to the whole concept then we best jolly well ensure that there are processes for practitioners to be involved in deciding what the Guild actually does - need to avoid a purely top down approach and also ensure practitioners have a real voice which is heard.  Whilst we do say this in the consultation document, perhaps it’s not strong enough and we need to elaborate a bit more on thinking here.

Also some debates about costs etc; how Guild will be different from IfL/LSIS; should it be an individual membership body; how will learners be represented; is there overlap with other bodies etc? I didn’t take a poll, but there was also some who argued for mandated qualifications for staff, and it will be interesting to see if this theme comes through other consultation events.

So overall I am very grateful for all those who took time to come to these first events and they certainly helped to get the process off to a flying start….. 10 more events over the next 7 days with really good attendance, which also means lots of train journeys for more blog drafting!  

CONSULTATION AND KEY EMERGING ISSUES

It’s definitely full steam ahead for the project as we draft the consultation document.  As part of this work, Jacqui Buffton, one of our team members, has been reviewing the various strands of feedback we have had over the last 2 months from all parts of the sector, and she has drafted a section for the consultation document.  So to provide some early feedback of what we think you have been telling us, I thought I would publish this draft section on my blog and later on our website.

Informal Consultation Process

As a precursor to this formal consultation document, various discussion papers were produced between November 2012 and January 2013 to stimulate debate and highlight key issues or areas to be addressed. Initial views were sought from individuals through four informal focus groups held in December 2012, in London and Birmingham. An open access, on-line initial consultation survey was available for completion from December to mid-January 2013. The Steering Group, which met twice (December 2012 and January 2013), and the Executive Group, were also used to gain views from organisations and stakeholders on what might be the key issues for consultation on the setting up of a Guild for the Learning and Skills sector. They also ensured, through their networks, that the initial consultation processes were engaged with by all relevant parties. A number of written responses to the initial consultation were also received.  In addition a dedicated blog was used to provide feedback on emerging issues and to help generate debate.  A Guild website was also set up to provide updates and access to key project documents.

68 people attended the four focus groups from a variety of organisations. 404 responses were received from the on-line survey. The majority were from the colleges (54%), the Independent Learning providers (23%), Local Authority and Adult Community providers (7%), with 3% from Third Sector Providers and the remainder (11%) from a variety of individuals not within the above categories.

Emerging Key Issues

All the focus groups raised the need to clarify the remit of the Guild and to identify what part of the sector landscape it was trying to or should occupy.  This was reflected in the on-line survey where half of respondents were supportive or very supportive of the general concept, but 42% were ambivalent until they knew more. 

The focus groups, those responding to the on-line survey and the Steering Group were in general agreement that the core focus of the Guild should be to enhance the professionalism of the sector. The on-line survey showed support for the Guild being responsible for the following functions:

·         Standards and qualifications for those working in the sector (87%)
·         CPD opportunities (84%)
·         Training, learning and curriculum development (80%)
·         Governance, Leadership and Management development (70%)
·         Undertaking or commissioning of research related to teaching and learning (73%)
·         Self-assessment and peer review (65%)
·         Organisational effectiveness and efficiency (57%)
·         Initial teacher training and supply (56%)
·         Learner support and learner voice (51%)

There was limited support for the Guild becoming responsible for ‘World Skills’ (41% in the on-line survey), but one written response pointed up the links with World Skills and connectivity with national and international standards, which had not been explained in the survey, so we will cover this in more detail in the consultation.

Written responses covered the need to include all sectors, develop the authority to set standards (one mentioned including standards for leaders and governors), the role the Guild might have in endorsing teaching qualifications and CPD modules, and in ‘future proofing’ the sectors, the dissemination of good practice models on performance management, the collection of appropriate data on the workforce and the links that could be made to the proposed Charter Status and Covenant. There was support for a Covenant demonstrated in the on-line survey, and from one written response, provided it did not undermine national or local bargaining arrangements. Collective bargaining and intervention with providers was not considered to be a Guild function.

 

Concern was expressed in a number of fora about how the Guild’s functions would align with what is already available within the sector and how it would add value.

The issue of the role of the Guild in enhancing the reputation of the sector, both with learners, employers and government was raised in the focus groups, the written responses and in the Steering Group.

There was general agreement throughout the initial consultation, that the Guild should be sector led/owned. Through the discussions at the focus groups, at the Steering Group and with individual organisations, the view emerged that it should begin as an employer–led organisation (here employer means provider) with the option to provide for individual membership at a later date. How to fund such an organisation was raised as an issue, and will need to be addressed further in the consultation document.

There were conflicting and strongly held views on what parts of the workforce should be covered by the Guild. This will again need further exploration as part of the consultation document.

If we have missed anything crucial please do let us know.

Professionalism and why a Guild

A fundamental question raised at every focus group was around the  need for and function of an FE Guild, articulated in different ways from “what problem is it trying to solve?”, “what value will it add?”, or “which part of the complicated sector ‘space’ is it trying to occupy and own”? 

 There is of course quite a lot already in print including in the Lord Lingfield report and the BIS invitation to tender for the development phase. For example: “acting as an overarching body with end to end responsibility for professionalism and vocational education across the sector”. But rather than trying to repeat or paraphrase these previous statements, I thought it would be worth just trying to articulate some key reasons for proceeding with this initiative.  Again these are just my own personal musings and I have a suspicion this post is higher risk of being more contentious than my previous ones, and indeed some may think it’s a bit of ‘a blinding glimpse of the obvious’!  But here goes and I would positively welcome any input and comment, even if you disagree completely with anything I say.  

 I wonder do you think that a useful starting objective for a guild could primarily be the focus on professionalism of the sector workforce and how this might be recognised, developed and enhanced by the Guild?  You can of course write a thesis about what professionalism means, and even an internet search throws up a plethora of views.  Before even starting to look at professionalism perhaps we need to consider why we want a recognised professional workforce, or is that obvious?

·         To improve the learner experience and outcomes?
·         To enhance the reputation of the sector with learners, society, government and employers so that it is widely respected as a provider of high quality, fit for purpose education and training?
·         To make the sector an attractive place to work so that it can attract and retain the best staff – as one person said to me “FE becomes a first choice career”?

Of course a professional workforce is not the only ingredient needed to achieve the above and others might include high quality infrastructure, adequate resources and strong political support?

But turning back to professionalism and what it means, I have adapted one version below, which I felt reasonably closely matched our sector and thus might provide an interesting basis for a discussion:

One dictionary definition of professionalism is "the conduct, aims, or qualities that characterize or mark a profession or a professional person"; and it defines a profession as "a calling requiring specialised knowledge and often long and intensive academic preparation."

These definitions imply that professionalism encompasses a number of different attributes, and, together, these attributes identify and define a professional.

So, what are these attributes?

Specialised Knowledge

First and foremost, professionals are known for their deep understanding and expertise based on specialised knowledge. They've made a strong personal commitment to develop and improve their skills, and, where appropriate, they have the qualifications that serve as the foundation of this knowledge.
Professionals work in a serious, thoughtful and sustained way to master the specialised knowledge needed to succeed in their fields, and that they keep this knowledge up-to-date, so that they can continue to deliver the best work possible.

Competency

Professionals understand bits of knowledge or separate facts as organised ideas and can apply them in many different contexts; They're reliable, and they keep their promises. If circumstances arise that prevent them from delivering on their promises, they manage expectations up front, and they do their best to make the situation right.

Honesty and Integrity

Professionals exhibit qualities such as honesty and integrity. They never compromise their values, and will do the right thing, even when it means taking a harder road.  More than this, true professionals are humble – if a project or job falls outside their scope of expertise, they're not afraid to admit this. They immediately ask for help when they need it, and they're willing to learn from others.

Accountability

Professionals hold themselves accountable for their thoughts, words, and actions as well as the standard of their work. This personal accountability is closely tied to honesty and integrity, and it's a vital element in professionalism.

Self-Regulation

They also stay professional under pressure. Genuine professionals show respect for the people around them, no matter what their role or situation. They exhibit a high degree of emotional intelligence by considering the emotions and needs of others, and they don't let a bad day impact how they interact with colleagues or learners.

Image

Professionals look the part and act accordingly.  Because of this, they exude an air of confidence, and they gain respect for themselves, the profession and the organisation they work for.
Based on feedback I think we would need to add one specific characteristic for our sector: Professionals recognise and actively promote equality and diversity considerations in everything they do?

I suspect that some will have different views and this whole subject could generate interesting debates.  But if we assume that the above is not a bad starter for 10 at defining what professionalism is about, then clearly many of these are more about personal characteristics.  Equally, even before that, there is a need for individuals to recognise that they actually belong to a distinct profession and for many they will effectively need dual professionalism covering their core vocational area and as a teacher/trainer/assessor or support function.

So how might an FE Guild help?  Before attempting to address that question, it is important to be very clear that I am not saying that some of this does not already exist in the sector, which it clearly does in some form or other through, for example, LSIS, IFL and the various programmes offered by representational bodies. 

The relatively easy part might be around qualifications and standards.  If professionalism implies some level of qualification to undertake a role, then individual practitioners and organisations need to know what qualifications are appropriate to their role and what represents best practice.  In theory I guess we could rely on awarding bodies maintaining the qualifications, but who would develop and improve qualifications in the future.  So for me this would not just be about being the overall custodian of sector qualifications and standards, but more importantly continuously reviewing them with the sector and through research to ensure they are fit for purpose and reflect changes in the specific environment, e.g. use of technology, changing employer needs etc.  A further complication for this sector is that ‘one size does not fit all‘, so whilst there appears to be a consensus that there mal qualification for many staff,ey.  ndeed I have a suspicion that the sector will see thiis a clear need for a suite of qualifications and standards for staff directly involved in teaching/training, learning and assessing, there is also an appetite to have a wider range of either qualifications or perhaps continuous professional development opportunities for everyone in the sector (e.g. those doing outreach work in community settings).

A key theme in the above and in all the articles I have seen, is the concept of professionals keeping their knowledge and practices up to date, as well as learning from others.  The idea that the FE Guild would somehow support, facilitate, endorse and generate CPD opportunities seems appropriate and was a key topic of discussion at the focus groups. It also got very high support in the survey.  There also appears to be a real demand for networks of professionals to facilitate learning from and with others, which is a key selling point of many other professional institutes and bodies. 

In addition, based on feedback at the focus groups, there appears to be a real demand for an organisation to set standards at organisation level also – “being a custodian of what represents excellence”. I guess this could be as simple as saying these are the standards, qualifications and CPD approaches, which are best practice for various providers, although this might sound a bit over simplistic and I suggest will need more debate across the sector.

But, as discussed above, a key part of professionalism is related to individuals and their personal qualities and approaches.  In most professional bodies this is covered by some form of individual professional code or ethics statement, which people effectively sign up to when they become members.  For us the concept of a sector covenant or compact between employers and employees has been raised.  This could encompass both specific agreements, e.g. for employees to undertake CPD and for employers to support employees in undertaking CPD, as well as wider expectations and behaviours.  Whether these are on an individual provider basis or part of being a member of the FE Guild is open to debate.  But in my view, without some approach to cover the wider attributes of professionalism we may not achieve the recognition and end result we are seeking.   

So what space should the Guild occupy if it is to “act as an overarching body with end to end responsibility for professionalism and vocational education across the sector?”

The above would suggest it could be about?

·         Qualifications and standards for the workforce;
·         Champion, support, endorsement and facilitation of high quality and appropriate CPD and networks of professional practitioners;
·         Building a shared understanding of professionalism and what this means for the sector, including ‘dual professionals’;
·         Defining the ‘professionalism gold standard’ for individuals and organisations to aspire to. 
 
At the outset I said I was trying to look at the generic ‘why a Guild’ question and I will admit in doing so I have strayed into a wider debate about professionalism in the round, but felt that without this any comments might be rather superficial – ah the benefits or a unstructured blog!  Anyway I would be very interested indeed to hear what you think and if the above makes it any clearer about the Guild or have I merely succeeded in mudding the waters further?   Perhaps you might wish to use some of this blog content as a discussion point with your individual teams?

Focus groups - initial impressions

2 Days, 2 Cities and four very different FE Guild focus groups, equals quite a lot of views, but that is exactly what we were hoping for.  Without exception, I found the groups to be very useful in helping us think about how we might take forward the FE Guild development phase and draft the Consultation Document (CD).  Many thanks indeed to all those who attended and the very constructive way people engaged with the challenge of getting our minds around what this is all about.  We will produce a summary, but without even trying to capture everything we discussed, I thought I would use the train journey home to try and record what I thought were some emerging themes from the 2 days.  If I don’t mention something we discussed, it doesn’t mean we will have lost it and indeed I may well update some of this when I see the fuller record of the events.

Strategic position:  In various different ways every group questioned and discussed what the aim or remit was for the FE Guild? What was the ‘problem’ it was trying to solve? What part of the sector landscape was it trying or should it try to occupy? What happens already and how might the FE Guild try and align with that?  Why should we expect it to be any more successful than previous or existing organisations?  How will it add value so that employers want to support it?  Do we need to conduct a “mapping exercise” across the sector to see how it might fit in?  Will it be another fad and how could we build in long-term sustainability?

A recurrent theme was also raised around there being far too many groups/organisations in the sector and how does FE Guild fit in and will it result in fewer groups….”collapse and simplify landscape”? 

Not that I was proposing we should, but clearly just saying it is to enhance the professionalism of the sector workforce is not enough justification or clear enough!

Why are we doing this:  In 3 of the groups, questions were raised around do we really want this or is it being imposed by Government?  But equally if it was going to happen, it is better if we take hold and make sure it does what we want, rather than risk something we don’t really want being imposed on us.

Remit:  Quite hard to paraphrase the wide ranging discussions.  But I think there was general agreement that core focus is around professionalism of the workforce and certainly owning standards and qualifications....but professionalism much wider than just this. So we are going to need to try and define that more.  General agreement that Continuous Professional Development should also be included, although again exactly what this means is not necessarily obvious.  2 of the groups felt very strongly that facilitating ‘networks of professional practitioners’ was a key element of CDP – “build professionalism bottom up”; “inspire professionalism”.  Also discussed was the need for clarity in the sector about what qualifications are available and appropriate for different roles.

Wider remit:  Interestingly in some groups there were debates about a wider role of the FE Guild, for example promoting the wider reputation, success and value of the sector….although this could be more about just the vocational part of the sector.  Others wanted it to focus more on key remit, certainly in the short-term, and not risk diluting core focus too much.  Would some of the other aspects about reputation etc develop once the FE Guild proves itself? How does it relate to role of bodies such as AoC, AELP etc.

Leadership Governance:  Actually not that much debate about this and general agreement that it should be part of FE Guild responsibility – not surprising there was a bit more questions/confusion around ‘how’ especially with what happens elsewhere eg leadership exchange and other programmes in representational bodies etc – eg will the Guild manage or facilitate or commission programmes etc.  One message that came across was that this is not just about courses, but also about facilitating networks for exchanging ideas and sharing best practice etc.

Mandated Qualifications:  This was one area where there were some strongly held polarised views. At one end, some felt qualification requirements and to a lesser extent maybe even membership of the FE Guild, should be mandated and, for example, be a prerequisite for funding or the new chartered status; reasons included level playing field, ensuring quality, only real way to raise professionalism, learner experience, meeting Ofsted expectations etc….”making it harder for rogue providers”.  Others felt equally strongly that it should be more about best practice, benchmarking or recommended standards for individual and organisations “Gold Standard”, but still up to individual employers to decide what qualifications were appropriate for their workforce – no appetite for trying to bring back regulation.  This did lead into questions about the possible relationship between the FE Guild and Chartered Status consultation, although we didn’t explore this too far. 

Equally I think there was consensus that some flexibility is essential – eg visiting professionals or industry experts, even if delivering a number of classes/talks would not necessarily need a formal qualification, although some guidance might be beneficial.  Straw polls would suggest the majority would not favour a mandated approach, but we will need to tease this out a bit more in the CD.

Who does it cover?  Whilst again not unanimous, a message that came across loud and clear (excuse Naval speak!) was that the FE Guild should be for the whole workforce, not just those involved in teaching, training, assessing etc, as everyone has a role to play in the outcomes and learner experience.  After teasing out the issues a bit more, there was recognition that one size doesn’t fit all and, for example, whilst the FE Guild might be directly responsible for the professional skills of teaching/training/assessing etc staff, it might not want to be responsible for professional skills of support staff, but perhaps contextualise them for the FE environment or have specific additional development standards/opportunities covering the uniqueness of operating in an FE environment. Definitely an area that will need further clarification.

Membership – Corporate or individual. Again mixed messages, but often driven by “if we want to enhance professionalism we need buy-in from individuals” and can this be achieved by a purely organisation membership arrangement.  The mixed model of the HE Academy did attract some support as a possible way of meeting both aims.   In one group this also resulted in a debate about Chartered Status for the FE Guild and whether, even if not feasible at the outset, it should be a long-term aspiration?

Again not trying to be prescriptive and I think we will need to develop further in the CD, but I got the impression that in the end there was general, but not unanimous, agreement that it needs to start as an organisational membership arrangement, but develop individual options if appropriate and realistic.

Funding – no surprises here, but completely polarised views and both ends of spectrum felt very strongly.  On the one hand there was “absolutely no appetite to pay” for this [FE Guild] and BIS funding essential – a theme primarily, but not exclusively, from the private providers.  Others felt, and many quite strongly, that if it was to be truly independent, then the FE Guild needs to aspire to become self funding very quickly with providers electing to join and pay.  A mixed economy model was also discussed, eg with funding covering core activities the Government might want and subscriptions to allow sector freedom to ensure the FE Guild meets sector needs.  Also a debate about whether if we had a mixed economy there was any way we could ensure legally that FE Guild is still sector owned and directed.

Common theme was that the FE Guild would really need to show it adds value if providers expected to subscribe ….but equally some, but not all, said that if they saw that value they could see their organisation being a member and subscribing.

Equally some concern that without ongoing funding the FE Guild may well not be financially viable and able to undertake all the necessary activities.  So real mixed messages here.

Sector owned?  This aspect was a bit hard to pin down and I felt we probably need to develop some options about what this might mean and look like to allow people really to comment and express their views.  Not surprising there was lots of debate about what the sector was?  Also concern about the risks to many providers if FE Guild ‘ownership’ is only AoC and AELP – how do we ensure all parts of the sector have a voice?

Name - Unprompted by me, in two groups it was commented that the name does not feel modern (Guild) or inclusive (FE).  Completely unscientific, but judging by smiles and head nodding around the table, I suspect this would be a widely held view!

LSIS - A number of people raised concerns about what would happen to certain aspects of the LSIS work, mainly around quality improvement and funded project work, but the intervention role was also mentioned, when LSIS loses funding.  I explained the mapping exercise we were undertaking covering the relevant areas of work in the sector and this would help inform the debate about which responsibilities currently undertaken elsewhere might come under the FE Guild.

Phased approach Where raised, there seemed too be general agreement that a phased approach would be essential for the FE Guild, initially focussing on some core parts of possible areas of responsibility, before evolving into a wider remit.

Equality and Diversity Not raised in every group – but equally when it was there was strong support for equality and diversity aspects to be considered in the development of the role of the FE Guild.  As this is a wide ranging area it will need more clarification about what aspects should or could come under the FE Guild.

Research – support for FE Guild’s possible role in research, associated with teaching and learning, mentioned in three groups but not discussed in real detail.

Worldskills – Again not raised in every group, but there was support for the FE Guild to be involved/responsible, not in putting on skills shows, but around the professionalism of the staff, networks of trainers/coaches etc – this will need to be developed further in the CD so that people know what this means and what the options are.

 

Ah well train arriving soon so will sign off for now!  Thanks again to everyone who came along and contributed.  Do let me know if you think I have completely misread anything or missed some fundamental point. If you couldn’t make the groups and want to make any comments, please feel free to do so, either here or by e-mail to the project. Have a good Christmas and watch this space for more updates in the New Year.

Discussion document 1 for focus groups

We had two extremely useful and quite different focus group meetings today and have two more planned for tomorrow (Tuesday) in Birmingham.  I will try and capture some of the debate in later posts .....which, given the wide ranging discussions, will be quite a challenge!!  We did send a copy of a discussion document to attendees and a couple of people suggested that I make it more readily available across the sector as soon as we can.  We will do this later this week, with some other discussion papers, but in the interim I have posted it below.   As always we are very happy to hear any views you might have.

FE Guild – Discussion Document – Number 1 – FE Guild purpose & remit

This document is intended to stimulate discussion about the potential purpose and remit for the FE Guild. It provides some information, some ideas and sets out some of the key questions which are apparent at the outset of the project. The aim is that the discussion and debate will help refine the ideas and options and help develop the consultation paper. which needs to go out early in the New Year.

Preamble

1.            We are not starting with a blank sheet in terms of the ideas and options for the purpose and remit of the guild. There a number of reference points for our thinking within our sector:

•        The Lord Lingfield review

•        The history of organisations which have operated in this space over recent years, including LSIS, CEL, QIA and IfL, as well as the many Government-led organisational approaches such as the Standards Unit

•        The AoC/AELP contract bid to undertake the FE Guild development phase.

•        The BIS Grant letter to AoC which contained a list of areas to be considered.

2.            There are also some important reference points from other sectors where organisations exist with similar purposes and remits. The project team will be looking at a number of organisations that represent specialist professional areas to learn as much as we can from their experiences. There are a number of common themes which are emerging from the early work which the project team have carried out and these are covered in this paper.

What should be the purpose of the FE Guild?

3.            Based on the Lord Lingfield review, the BIS prospectus and the AoC/AELP submission etc, is there a consensus that the overall purpose of the FE Guild could be something along the lines of: 

To support and enhance the development, qualification and recognition of the professionalism of the sector workforce, and the leadership and governance of the providers

There is a question about whether it should also focus on the outcomes of a professional workforce in terms of the learner experience and in meeting labour market needs.

4.            Following on from this we could look at key elements, initially covered in the ‘triangle’ of remit produced to support the AoC/AELP bid, supported by many sector stakeholders, and further developed during discussions/meetings prior to the start of the contract, which covered:

Teaching and Learning

•       Defines Competencies (SSC)

•       Endorses qualifications (SSC)

•       Co-ordinates response to McLoughlin Review

•       Develops  Covenant (Lingfield)

•       Identifies CPD best practice

Leadership and Governance Development:

•       Sponsors and commissions Courses

•       Identifies Skills gaps

•       Commissions development programmes

Professional (non-teaching) development:

•       Facilitates professional development with industry for lecturers / teachers

•       Develops communities of practice and scholarly endeavours for VET sector

•       Commissions research to inform professional development and improved teaching

Key Questions 1: Does this cover the essential elements of a potential purpose and remit?  Is anything vital missing? Should anything be excluded?

Aspiration for the Guild – what might it look a few years downstream?

5.            We are keen to encourage people in the sector to think about the medium and longer terms aspirations for the guild; what do we want the guild to achieve over that time? This is a bit difficult as we haven’t yet decided on the purpose and remit of the Guild, so this is really more a stab in the dark, but maybe by just thinking of where we might want to get to will help formulate the purpose of the Guild.  Do the following generic high level aspirations sound right?

•        A body which is recognised internally and externally as the expert voice and advocate on workforce development and qualifications for the sector.

•        Can show real sector ownership and direction by achieving outputs and successes widely accepted and acclaimed by the sector and stakeholders as valuable and contributing to the reputation and professionalism of the sector and most importantly the learner experience.

•        Has a robust, clear, flexible and fit for purpose set of qualifications and standards for new entrants to the sector as well as continuous professional development.

•        Can show significant increased engagement across the sector in leadership, management and governance development programmes, which lead to measurable individual and organisation improvements.

•        Is recognised by Government and other key stakeholders as being effective, making a real difference and offering good value for money.

•        Has helped to enhance the reputation of the sector with public and private sector employers by enhancing the professional reputation and currency of the workforce.

•        When measured against current reviews, eg Lord Lingfield, McLoughlin, and future developments is able to show that their aspirations have been reflected in the position the new body has reached.

•        Dependant on the final remit, has shown improvements across the sector in areas such as equality and diversity, STEM provision etc.

.

Key Questions 2:  Are these the right sort of aspirations? Do they describe the organisation we want to develop?  Are they realistic and measurable? Is anything critical missing? Should any come out as not really being aspirational? Do they help to define the way ahead?

What might an FE Guild mission or vision look like?

6.            From the work the project team has already carried out there is some sense of what a potential mission might look like for the guild. This does in some ways put the ’cart before the horse’, but in order to stimulate a response and with a bit of judicious plagiarism we have put together some possible mission statements. We will of course approach this through the consultation process to get more of a bottom up view.

·            We are the advocate and voice of the FE Sector profession, a champion of our professional interests, a respected partner to the broader FE Sector and a body that works in the learner interest.

·            We enhance the reputation and understanding of the FE profession and the professionalism of our members through the provision of world-class structures for the delivery of learning in the FE sector. We do this by providing advice on standards and qualifications, knowledge building and sharing, leadership development, research, excellent governance, conduct and ethics.

7.            As well as a mission, the guild might want to have a vision, so another stab at something for people to respond to and refine:

                                                                                                                      

To be at the heart of a FE sector profession that is widely respected for its professionalism and diversity, attracting the brightest people and where organisations, government, society and the learner understand the value of what we do. A profession that:

·            has a reputation for, and is built on, best practice, ethical standards, research, practitioner and academic leadership

·            makes an important contribution to society through our ability to build dialogue and trust, and is recognised for this contribution

·            is dynamic, collaborative and networked, reflecting the diversity of the sector and the pace of technological change.

Key Questions 3: Do these reflect your views on what the guild is about? Can you provide other words which might describe the organisation better? Is it helpful to include these sorts of options in the consultation process, or leave them out?

 

What might the FE Guild do?

8.            There is inevitably a long list of potential functions and activities which the guild might want to be engaged in. The following list is some of the more commonly stated potential functions:

·                 promote the values of effective delivery of learning

·                 learn from and supporting improvement in learning provision

·                 maintain ethics and values

Set and enhance first-class national standards of professionalism to ensure excellence in the FE sector by:

·                 developing a set of nationally agreed standards for FE staff to attain

·                 developing a set of guidelines for continuous professional development of FE staff

·                 providing frameworks for standards to be tested and achievement rewarded

Identify evidence of what works in FE learning provision and share best practice by:

·                 providing access to a body of knowledge that is informed by evidence-based research and best practice

·                 continuing to develop an understanding of the evolving learning delivery methodologies

Support the education and professional development of FE Staff by:

·                 developing and maintaining the national FE staff curriculum, assessment and accreditation frameworks

·                 providing guidance on appropriate continuous professional development

·                 delivering leadership, [Governance] and specialist training

·                 accrediting and quality-assuring FE staff training providers

·                 developing future leaders and expertise through effective talent management

Enable and motivate staff and employers to work together to achieve a shared purpose by:

·                 developing a covenant between employers and employees and a code of practise for practitioners

·                 working with partners to make the best use of specialist knowledge

·                 supporting desired behaviours and actions that embody the FE sector values

Influence and support development of Government policy and strategy around workforce development and learning delivery by:

·                 working with Government departments and agencies to provide expert advice on workforce development and learning delivery

·                 ensuring FE employers are engaged and consulted in workforce development evolving strategies

·                 evidence-based learning delivery

There are many questions about how the guild might carry out these functions which need to be addressed over the coming weeks and there are many options and many lessons to be learned from others about the pros and cons of different methodologies.

What might the FE Guild not do?

9.            At the same time that some possible functions/activities have started to emerge in discussions, there are a number which seem to commonly be mentioned as beyond or outside the remit of the guild: 

•        require FE staff to have a licence to practise

•        mandate qualifications or levels of continuous professional development

•        negotiate pay and conditions of employment for FE staff

•        maintain a record of disbarred staff

•        duplicate all the roles other bodies play, like OFSTED

•        investigate complaints or allegations of misconduct against FE staff - this will remain within the remit of the relevant employing organisation

•        create a raft of bureaucratic guidance for the FE sector

Key Questions 4: are these the right activities, functions for the guild? Is anything missing, and any which should not be included?